Pulse Biosciences Inc. PLSE

May 2017
Pulse Biosciences, Inc. (PLSE)

High-Voltage Hype Set to Short-Circuit
We are short shares of Pulse Biosciences, a ~$400mm medical-device company with 13

employees, zero revenue, and one focus: developing and commercializing a technology it calls
Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS), in which cells are exposed to very strong electrical fields for
very brief periods of time in hopes of killing them. Pulse claims that this method of killing cells
constitutes a novel therapeutic tissue treatment platform with the potential not only to destroy
tumors directly but also, in the words of the companys chief scientific officer, to essentially
transform[ them] into vaccines to direct the immune system to destroy them. On the basis of
this high concept (as opposed to any significant commercial or technical progress), Pulses
stock price has increased six-fold since its May 2016 IPO.
This run-up is senseless. Contrary to Pulses highly selective narrative, even if NPS one day
performed as advertised, it would still have little value. For one thing, an existing ablation device
called the NanoKnife, which has been on the market for a decade, also kills cells by exposing
them to very strong electrical fields for very brief periods of time. While Pulse insists that its
technology, by using somewhat stronger fields for somewhat briefer periods, generates wildly
different effects, the scientific literature argues otherwise: many allegedly unique benefits of
NPS, like the induction of apoptosis (a form of programmed cell suicide) and the stimulation of
the immune system, apply not just to NanoKnife but to a wide range of other run-of-the-mill
treatments. From a clinical perspective, Pulses NPS is nothing special, especially relative to
NanoKnife which, in turn, is a perennial flop with less than $20 million in annual revenue.
Worse still, our review of published NPS results reveals that the technology doesnt perform as
advertised. To the contrary, its often appallingly ineffective. For instance, in the only formal NPS
clinical trial published to date, Pulse researchers treated three patients with skin cancer and in
an outcome far worse than standard surgery left two with residual cancer and a third with
discolored and anomalous-looking (but supposedly, for the time being, benign) lesions. Very
recently, new research funded by Pulse itself concluded that even after the most intense
treatments a sizable fraction of human cancer cells across a range of cancer types simply
cannot be killed by NPS an alarming phenomenon whose cause remains a complete mystery.
The unexpected discovery of this residual resistivity or tolerance published online in
December, headed for print in May, yet, to our knowledge, never mentioned by Pulse
management may by itself wipe out what little commercial value NPS might have had. Whats
the point of a method for killing cancer that cant kill cancer?
Pulses technology has barely made it off the drawing board, yet its already proven itself to be
weak, unreliable, and undifferentiated. Investors with high expectations are in for a shock.
Disclaimer: As of the publication date of this report, Kerrisdale Capital Management, LLC and its affiliates
(collectively, Kerrisdale), have short positions in and own option interests on the stock of Pulse
Biosciences, Inc. (the Company). Other research contributors, and others with whom we have shared our
research (collectively with Kerrisdale, the Authors) likewise have short positions in, and/or own option
interests on, the stock of the Company. The Authors stand to realize gains in the event that the price of the
stock decreases. Following publication, the Authors may transact in the securities of the Company. All
expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice, and the Authors do not undertake to update
this report or any information herein. Please read our full legal disclaimer at the end of this report.
Table of Contents
I. INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 3
II. COMPANY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 7
III. PULSES TECHNOLOGY IS NOTHING SPECIAL ....................................................................... 8
Many Other Cancer Treatments Stimulate the Immune System .............................................................................10
Observed Immune Effects Have Not Translated to Clinical Benefits ...................................................................12
Technologies Like Pulses Have Been Commercial Flops ........................................................................................13
IV. PULSES TECHNOLOGY IS IMPOTENT AND UNRELIABLE ................................................ 16
Pulses Basal-Cell Carcinoma Trial Was a Failure .......................................................................................................16
NPS Fails to Kill Many Cancer Cells ............................................................................................................................19
V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 20
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 21
FULL LEGAL DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................... 23
Kerrisdale Capital Management, LLC | 1212 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor | New York, NY 10036 | Tel: 212.792.7999 | Fax: 212.531.6153 2
I. Investment Highlights
Pulses NPS technology is far less special than it claims. Pulse contends that NPS will
provide unique benefits to patients in a wide variety of medical applications,1 asserting that,
while other ablation modalities using extreme heat or cold to destroy tumors generally lead[] to
cellular necrosis (uncontrolled cell death driven by physical injury), NPS offers a non-thermal
and non-ionizing ablative technology that can be selectively tuned to induce apoptosis, or
programmed cell death. [T]his less destructive approach, according to Pulse, lends itself to a
number of applications including tumors which would otherwise be inoperable because of
proximity to critical structures (emphasis added).2
However, irreversible electroporation (IRE) a technology very similar to NPS and already
commercialized for years under the brand name NanoKnife has been pitched in almost
exactly the same way, as this selection from a 2012 marketing presentation demonstrates:
Selection from NanoKnife Marketing Presentation, February 2012
Source: AngioDynamics. Red highlights added by Kerrisdale.
Furthermore, while Pulse uses limited evidence from animal models to suggest that NPS can
prevent cancer recurrence, irreversible electroporation produced similar results four years ago,
when a team of researchers found that, after using IRE to destroy tumors in mice and then
1 Pulse 2016 10-K, p. 3.

2 Pulse 2016 prospectus, p. 27.
injecting the mice with a second batch of cancer cells, growth of the second tumors
wassignificantly reduced or prevented entirely (1). Indeed, more broadly, what Pulse claims
to be NPSs most important benefit its purported ability to cause cell death in a way that
stimulates the immune system is shared by a wide range of therapies, including cryoablation,
photodynamic therapy, radiation therapy, focused ultrasound ablation, radiofrequency ablation,
and more. If NPS cant provide unique benefits like Pulse says, then it makes no sense for
such an early-stage technology years away from generating meaningful revenue, and
supported by published data from only four human patients to command such a high
valuation.
Similar technologies have repeatedly fallen short of expectations. While Pulses marketing
message closely resembles that of NanoKnife (manufactured by AngioDynamics, which
acquired the technology in 2008 for just $25 million3), that should come as no comfort to Pulse
shareholders, since NanoKnife has proven to be a serial disappointment both clinically and
commercially. For instance, in a surprising failure, a clinical trial testing the use of NanoKnife in
lung cancer ended early when it became clear that the treatment failed to eradicate many
tumors (2) notwithstanding preclinical evidence, like Pulses, of positive immune effects. A
decade after launching, NanoKnife still produces less than $20 million of annual revenue a
small part of a relatively small yet crowded market for nonsurgical tumor ablation.
Similarly, while some animal models have suggested that radiofrequency ablation stimulates
significant immune benefits, a randomized controlled trial in humans with liver cancer proved
that the therapy delivered results that were significantly worse than those of conventional
surgical resection (3). Another technology, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), has
likewise shown signs of enhancing immune responses to cancer, yet its results in humans were
so weak that it struggled to achieve FDA approval, and the technologys leading manufacturer, a
French company called EDAP, earns almost zero profit from it. In general, tantalizing hints that
new ablation modalities might confer meaningful anti-cancer immunity have failed to translate
into real-world success, an outcome that we fully expect to repeat for Pulse. Theres no room in
the marketplace for a NanoKnife me too when the original NanoKnife has failed to gain much
traction. Even if Pulses technology did what it was supposed to do, it would have no realistic
value proposition.
Pulses data indicate that NPS is impotent and unreliable. In the only formal study of NPS in
humans yet completed and published, Pulse researchers treated ten small tumors caused by
basal-cell carcinoma (a type of skin cancer) across three patients. While Pulse has spun this
study as an early win, three out of the ten tumors remained cancerous 15 weeks after treatment;
by contrast, the most effective treatment for this cancer, a technique called Mohs surgery,
almost always succeeds, with recurrence very rare even five years later. Not only did NPS fail to
eliminate 30% of the tumors; it failed on two out of three patients. The third, while judged
cancer-free on the basis of histological data, was likely unhappy with the improvement of her
3 See AngioDynamics FY 2009 10-K, p. 4.
two lesions, which in our view look even more troubling after treatment (last row of photos) than
before treatment (first row of photos):
Pulses Results in One Patients Basal-Cell Carcinoma
Does this look like a cure?
Source: Nuccitelli et al. 2014 (4), Kerrisdale analysis

Images depict two different tumors on a single patient before
treatment and two, seven, and eleven weeks after treatment, from
top to bottom.
For one of the other two patients, not only did NPS fail to rid him of cancer; it also appeared to
give rise to two instances of seborrheic keratosis, a benign skin growth that looks like skin
cancer an unpleasant result not just for the patient but for Pulse, which hopes to one day treat
this condition4 yet may somehow cause it.
These startlingly bad results are consistent with a longer track record of weak and inconsistent
NPS data. The latest and perhaps the most worrisome example is a study paid for by Pulse
itself that shows for the first time that, across a variety of healthy and cancerous human cell
lines, sizable (10%+) fractions of cell populations exposed to NPS boast an unusual level
oftolerance and simply dont die, no matter how many times theyre zapped (5). Disturbingly,
while the authors of the study tried to take the sting out of this discovery by blaming it on some
artifact of the experimental methodology, they concluded that the phenomenon of NPS
resistance or tolerance is quite real yet its cause remains a mystery.
4 See e.g. Pulse 2016 10-K, p. 6.
When NPS failed to completely kill tumors or prevent their recurrence in previous studies, as it
often did, researchers could always fall back on the excuse that they just hadnt used enough
pulses. The new study, however, exposes that excuse as hollow and underscores just how
poorly the effects of NPS are still understood. Since cancer is, by definition, a disease of
aberrant growth, and other existing ablation modalities can in fact reliably kill cells, a treatment
like Pulses NPS that unaccountably only kills some parts of tumors some of the time is
worthless.
If Pulses technology were as good as it claimed to be, it would still falter in a market already full
of technologies with similar stories. But with so much evidence quickly stacking up against NPS,
we believe its dead on arrival.
II. Company Overview
Pulse Biosciences: Capitalization and Financial Results

Capitalization Financial results ($ mm)
Share price ($) $23.07 2015 2016 2017
Fully diluted shares (mm):* Revenue $ - $ - $ -
Shares outstanding 14.1 Oper. cash flow (3) (8) (14)
Dilutive impact of warrants/options 1.7 Cash 4 16 8
Total 15.9
Fully diluted market cap ($mm) $ 366
*Pro forma for Pulses February 2017 equity issuance (at a price of $6.10 per share).
2017 values represent Kerrisdale projections. Pulse management indicated on the companys May 4,
2017, earnings call that cash use in 2017 would be $13.5 million.
Source: company filings, Kerrisdale analysis
Though technically founded in May 2014, Pulse Biosciences grew out of an entity formed in
2000 (initially called RPN Enterprises and later renamed BioElectroMed) created by Richard
Nuccitelli, a former UC Davis professor and now chief scientific officer of Pulse who retired from
academia to pursue his fortune. In the early 2000s, Nuccitelli grew excited about early animal
studies showing that strong but brief electrical pulses (on the order of 100 nanoseconds in
duration) could eliminate tumors. While research findings in this area, many of them co-
authored by Nuccitelli and funded by government grants, trickled in over the years, the field
remained obscure, with only a handful of groups involved and no apparent outside commercial
interest. By 2008, Nuccitellis BioElectroMed entity seemed to be more focused on an unrelated
technology called the Dermacorder, designed to assess wound healing and even diagnose
cancer by measuring electric fields; an old version of BioElectroMeds web site boasts that the
device was featured on Star Trek Tech [on the] History Channel.
But the Dermacorder apparently amounted to little, and by 2013 BioElectroMed returned its
focus to what it then called Nanosecond Pulse Ablation. A Partnering page on its site noted,
We seek corporate partnersTo inquire about partnering opportunities, please contact us. But
no partners emerged. Ultimately the small investment bank MDB Capital a firm with a
checkered past that includes packaging and taking public many companies that proved
disastrous for long-term shareholders helped BioElectroMed roll up a number of patents
related to nanosecond pulsed electric fields, some of which were previously held by a handful of
universities, including Old Dominion and Eastern Virginia Medical School. A November 2014
private placement infused the new roll-up entity with $8 million in cash and valued it at $20
million in total, or $2.67 per share (88% lower than the current price). Finally, what was now
called Pulse went public in May 2016 at a price of $4 per share.
Little happened in Pulses first several months as a public company, and its stock price ranged
between $4 and $6. On February 10, however, Pulse issued a press release announcing that
Robert Duggan, a serial entrepreneur who became a billionaire after selling the drug company
Pharmacyclics to AbbVie, and Maky Zanganeh, a former dentist and Duggans COO at
Pharmacyclics, bought significant stakes in the company, including purchasing $5 million of
newly issued shares directly from the company at a price of $6.10. Investors, acting as if this
shift in ownership somehow altered the value of Pulses underlying technology, drove the stock
dramatically higher from there. Indeed, the price has become so frothy that Pulse recently
announced that MDB Capital had waived lock-up provisions a month early for pre-IPO holders
of 28% of the companys shares; apparently these holders were so eager to sell at current
prices that they didnt want to risk waiting even one more month, despite the ugly optics.
While the past successes of Pulses new minority shareholders deserve respect, they cant
change what the technology is or how well it works. To be sure, NPS is still very early in its
development, having been used on only a handful of human patients to date, but, with no
meaningful edge over alternative ablation modalities and an accumulating body of evidence
highlighting its weakness and inconsistency, Pulse cannot, in our view, justify anything close to
its current valuation no matter who owns its shares.
III. Pulses Technology Is Nothing Special
Out of context, Pulses story sounds good. The first page of the companys IPO prospectus sets
out the official line:
For the treatment of cancer, we believe that we can trigger a signaling cascade within
the tumor cells that ends in immunogenic apoptosis. Immunogenic apoptosis is a
process in which cells are induced to die in a natural way, initiating their own
programmed cell death, engaging the immune system to clear damaged, diseased, or
aged cells and enrolling cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eliminate cells of the same
tumor type. We believe we are the only medical device company with the intellectual
property, technology, and know-how to be able to produce this natural cell death using
NPES5 to initiate cell signaling that induces the targeted adaptive immune response.6
Not only can Pulses device kill cells, the story goes; it can also kill them in a unique way that
recruits the patients own immune system to join the fight.
But is Pulse truly the only medical device company with these abilities? Pulse is at pains to
distinguish its nanosecond pulses (which, in clinical applications, have actually been ~100-
nanosecond pulses) using electric field strengths of tens of thousands of volts per centimeter
from the characteristics of another technology, irreversible electroporation (IRE), which uses
pulses ~100x longer at electric field strengths ~10x weaker. According to Pulse, irreversible
5 By the time of its 2016 Q3 10-Q, Pulse began to refer to its technology as Nano-Pulse Stimulation
However, previously it used the term Nano-Pulse Electro-Signaling (NPES), while academic papers
generally say nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF). These terms are all synonymous.
electroporation marketed by the publicly traded medical-device company AngioDynamics
under the name NanoKnife cause[s] cell membranes to irreversibly permeabilize, resulting in
necrosis (death) of the tumor cells, while Pulses technology, by contrast, transiently
permeabilizes internal organelles which can lead to a signaling cascade ending in immunogenic
apoptosis rather than necrosis.7
The scientific literature, however, paints a different picture: irreversible electroporation is

generally regarded as causing apoptosis. Consider the following passage from a study of IRE in
human prostate cancer (emphasis added) (6):
Unlike other [focal therapy] modalities, [IRE] relies on a non-thermal mechanism to

induce cell death. IRE uses needle electrodes placed in or around a targeted volume of
tissue to deliver a series of brief direct-current electrical pulses with the intention of
inducing a permanently porous cell membrane. This disrupts cellular homoeostasis
resulting in apoptosis.
This summary is not meant to be controversial; rather, it merely states the consensus. Another
recent IRE study used similar language (7):
Unlike RFA [radiofrequency ablation] and MWA [microwave ablation], IRE induces
apoptotic cell death in the (relative) absence of thermal damage. IRE thus offers the
advantage of preserving underlying structural integrity and architecture due to the
absence of necrotic cell death
Moreover, while Pulse harps on NPSs ability to induce apoptosis, this emphasis is overblown.
What exactly NPS does to cells remains murky. As one 2014 paper explained (emphasis
added) (8):
With the complexity of the cellular response to nsPEF [nanosecond pulsed electric
fields], the mechanisms and specific pathways leading to cell death have only been
partially understood. The early studies focused on the apoptotic response and only
recently early necrosis was reported by several groups as a separate or even a
predominant mode of nsPEF-induced cell death.
In short, AngioDynamics NanoKnife IRE technology causes apoptosis, not just necrosis, while
Pulses NPS technology causes necrosis, not just apoptosis. To depict itself as unique, Pulse
has no choice but to gloss over the deep similarities between IRE and NPS, but these efforts
are misleading. However interesting the different effects engendered by variations in pulse
duration and field strength may be from a scientific perspective, their practical impact on cancer
cells appears to be small.
Indeed, more broadly, there is nothing unusual about non-surgical ablation modalities or other
cancer treatments causing cell death by apoptosis. As one 2016 review put it, Induction of
apoptotic programmed cell death is one of the underlying principles of most current cancer
therapies, including radiation and chemotherapy (emphasis added) (9). While cells directly
exposed to intense heat may die in an uncontrolled, necrotic manner, thats not the whole story.
In the words of another recent review (emphasis added) (10):
Heat-ablated lesions can be thought of as having three zones: the central zone, which is
immediately beyond the application tip and which undergoes ablation-induced
coagulative necrosis; a peripheral or transitional zone of sublethal hyperthermia, which
mostly occurs from thermal conduction of the central area that is either undergoing
apoptosis or recovering from reversible injury; and the surrounding tissue that is
unaffected by ablation.
As the same review also points out, a similar pattern results from cryoablation, which kills cells
via intense cold:
Direct cold-induced coagulative necrosis occurs at the centre of cryoablative lesions,

whereas apoptosis has been observed at their periphery.
Thus, what Pulse cites as a key point of differentiation NPSs ability to induce apoptosis is
anything but different. A company with an undistinguished hypothetical product that has barely
taken the first steps toward commercialization in a crowded market doesnt deserve a $400-
million valuation.
Many Other Cancer Treatments Stimulate the Immune System
Ironically, Pulses rhetorical focus on apoptosis runs counter to its other focus: the potential
immunological benefits of NPS. In general, apoptosis is thought to stimulate immune responses
far less than necrosis or even to suppress immune responses. A 2009 review of immune
responses to cryoablation summarized the traditional view (11):
Necrosis occurs with mechanical tissue damage, such as cryoablation, and is

characterized by cellular breakdown and release of intracellular contents. Many of these
intracellular contents can be immunostimulatory. Apoptosis, or programmed cell
death, results in several steps that allow the uptake of cellular debris by both
macrophages and dendritic cells, but without causing inflammation and thus stimulat[ing]
an immune response. Apoptotic cells do not release their contentsas do necrotic cells.
In fact, several studies have shown that apoptosis not only does not stimulate immune
recognition, but quite the opposite.
To be fair, over time, further research has demonstrated that in some cases apoptosis can give
rise to so-called immunogenic cell death (ICD). However, it would be bizarre to suggest that
Pulses NPS has a monopoly on stimulating the immune system. To the contrary, decades of
research show that a wide range of ablation modalities and other treatments can lead to ICD.
This is not some special new power that makes Pulses technology superior to the status quo;
its already widespread.
A recent review by researchers from University College London entitled Harnessing the
Immunomodulatory Effect of Thermal and Non-Thermal Ablative Therapies for Cancer
Treatment gives a sense of how many such therapies appear to enhance immune responses:
Select Ablative Therapies Found to Stimulate the Immune System
Source: Bastianpillai et al. 2015 (12), Table 1

Note: PDT = photodynamic therapy; HiFU = high-intensity focused ultrasound; LoFU = low-intensity
focused ultrasound.
Note that the treatment with the strongest evidence of immune-response generation is
cryotherapy, the ablation of tumors using extreme cold; by contrast, electroporation the
treatment most similar to Pulses NPS has produced more limited evidence. Beyond this list,
chemotherapeutic agents including doxorubicin, mitoxantrone, oxaliplatin, and bortezomib,
along with the simple physical intervention of applying high hydrostatic pressure ex vivo, have
also been shown to elicit ICD (13). Pulses technology is more of the same.
Consider, for instance, radiofrequency ablation a method of killing cancer cells with intense
heat. Japanese researchers showed in 2010 that radiofrequency ablation of a tumor on one side
of a mouses body could significantly reduce the growth rate of an untreated tumor on the other
side, accompanied by massive T-cell infiltration evidence of a strengthened immune
response sparked by the ablation (14). Another group showed in 2013 that radiofrequency
ablation of colorectal cancer in mice caused a marked increase in intratumoral CD8+ T
lymphocyte infiltration, especially T cells specific for tumor antigens. In addition, ablation of a
primary tumor retarded the growth of separately induced secondary tumors on other parts of the
body, and this effect required the presence of T cells to work (15). In short, radiofrequency
ablation doesnt just kill the cancer cells it directly affects; it also triggers the immune system to
attack similar cells.
Likewise, consider high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Mouse studies as far back as 1992
suggested that HIFU led to stimulation of host tumor immunity (16). Further studies revealed
that vaccinating mice with HIFU-treated tumor cells inhibited growth of subsequently introduced
tumors, while T cells extracted from tumor-bearing mice treated with HIFU, when transferred to
other such mice not treated with HIFU, could extend survival and even induce tumor regression
(17).
Irreversible electroporation also appears to confer a degree of anti-tumor immunity. In 2013,

researchers found that, after only partially ablating mouse tumors using IRE, mice with
functional immune systems survived much longer than immunodeficient mice suggesting that,
even when IRE didnt eliminate every cancer cell, it still sparked enough of an immune response
(in mice capable of it) to enhance health. Furthermore, in tumor-bearing mice treated with IRE
and then subsequently re-challenged with the same type of tumors, growth of the second
tumors was shown to be significantly reduced or prevented entirely a phenomenon
accompanied by robust T-cell infiltration in some mice (1). In 2016, another mouse model
demonstrated that IRE ablation of the liver could inhibit the growth of a related tumor on the
skin, again accompanied by an influx of T cells (18).
Such effects, observed across a wide array of ablation modalities (including NanoKnifes IRE),
put Pulses overblown claims in perspective. The best evidence Pulse has marshaled shows
that, in some cases, in certain animal models, NPS treatment can do more than kill the cells it
directly affects; it can also stimulate the immune system to target tumors itself. But the same
can be said for radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound,
irreversible electroporation, and more. Pulses findings do nothing to distinguish NPS from the
many more established and better understood competitors.
Observed Immune Effects Have Not Translated to Clinical Benefits
Despite intriguing suggestions of positive immunological side effects, however, nonsurgical

ablation modalities have often performed poorly in real patients. In the words of one 2017
review (emphasis added) (17):
[In addition] to lowering the general tumor burden, ablation releases tumor antigens and
multiple bioactive molecules such as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs).
Combined with general inflammation and immune-regulatory processes of the wound
healing response following ablation, this will result in different innate and adaptive
immune effects. Howeverresponses generally remain weak. Potent antitumor
immunity therefore is rarely generated, as also evidenced by scarce reports of
spontaneous regression following ablation.
Irreversible electroporation, for example the modality most similar to Pulses NPS performed
surprisingly poorly in a key lung-cancer trial published in 2015, forcing the trial to be cut short
prematurely lest more patients receive such ineffective treatment (2). In another recent clinical
trial dubbed the NanoKnife Electroporation Ablation Trial (NEAT), researchers were again
clearly disappointed by the results, noting that, while NanoKnife treatment appeared to be safe,
[t]he ablation results were less satisfactory, with one-third [of patients] harbouring clinically
significant disease following treatment a far cry from a consistent cure. Thus, whatever the
modest potential immune benefits of IRE, they were not enough to overcome its other
limitations, like the difficulty of assessing whether a targeted tumor has been fully ablated in the
first place.
These weak results are not unique to IRE; other modalities have produced similar
disappointments in the clinic. For instance, in a large randomized trial comparing liver-cancer
patients treated with radiofrequency ablation to those treated with conventional surgery, RFA
led to substantially worse overall survival and recurrence-free survival, with RFA patients almost
50% more likely than surgery patients to experience a recurrence of their cancer within five
years after treatment (3). Again, regardless of whether RFA induced any immune response in
these patients, it didnt matter; overall, they still would have been better off with surgery.
Ultrasound ablation has yielded further disappointments. An unfinished trial using a device
called Ablatherm produced by the publicly traded company EDAP found that almost a third of
prostate-cancer patients tested positive for prostate cancer within two years of ablation, results
so poor that an FDA expert panel voted unanimously in 2014 that there was no reasonable
assurance that the treatment was effective. Once more, immunological data generated in animal
models failed to translate to a net clinical benefit in real patients.
Indeed, the evidence in favor of nonsurgical ablation is generally weak, as one recent review
pointed out (10):
[C]ommon disadvantages include incomplete ablation, disease recurrence and inferior

outcomesThere is a noticeable lack of randomized controlled clinical trials in patients,
which is mostly because it is unethical to conduct head-to-head comparisons between
ablation and surgical excision when the tumour is resectable.
Over time, the same pattern of disillusionment has repeated again and again: tantalizing hints
that killing cells in some novel way will have meaningfully positive knock-on effects, juxtaposed
with unimpressive clinical outcomes that relegate the treatment to the small market of patients
with no better alternatives. At best, Pulses NPS technology will fizzle out in the same way.
Technologies Like Pulses Have Been Commercial Flops
With only weak and equivocal clinical data to support them, novel ablation modalities akin to
Pulses havent gained significant market share. The most relevant example is the NanoKnife
IRE technology, purchased by AngioDynamics in 2008 for just $25 million (a small fraction of
Pulses current market cap).8 The NanoKnife pitch is almost identical to Pulses, as befits a
technology so similar. Both purport to use strong but short electrical pulses, not extreme
temperatures, to induce apoptosis; both can point to limited preclinical evidence that this
approach triggers an immune response; and both claim they can protect important structures
like blood vessels and bile ducts that may be close to targeted tumors. Pulses NPS, however,
remains far from commercialization, while NanoKnife has benefited from a decade of marketing
and a large body of clinical research.
After all those years, though, NanoKnife has gained little traction. Across the world, virtually no
insurance company or government payor covers NanoKnife ablation,9 regarding it as
experimental and investigational, not proven or medically necessary.10 While the FDA has
cleared it for the generic indication of soft-tissue ablation, it lacks approval for the treatment of
any specific condition; as a result, in the words of a recent sell-side initiation piece, NanoKnife
market adoption has been slow.11 To our knowledge, the last time AngioDynamics disclosed
NanoKnife revenue, in October 2015, it had fallen from an annualized run rate of $17 million12 to
just $12 million, driven by a decline in the sale of new NanoKnife systems (as opposed to
disposables used during procedures). While AngioDynamics then stopped providing specific
figures, management signaled that NanoKnife market growth continued to be weak:13
January 7, 2016: [G]aining new capital placements has been a challenge for
NanoKnifeAs we look to the second half of the [fiscal] year, we have revised our
NanoKnife capital outlook to reflect this view until we achieve our reimbursement goals.
April 7, 2016: Capital sales of NanoKnife continued to be a challenge this
quarter[T]he revised guidance contemplates near-term NanoKnife capital sales to be
below historical run rate levels
January 6, 2017: The Oncology/Surgery franchise generated revenue [that was]down
6% year-over-year and was driven by lower sales in a blation products and
NanoKnife capital
It thus appears that NanoKnife has made little progress beyond the installed base of just 136
units that it had achieved by 2016.14 If thats all NanoKnife could accomplish in over a decade,
8See AngioDynamics FY 2009 10-K, p. 4. 2008 is when the purchase closed; it was announced earlier, in
2006.
9 See e.g. Barclays Capitals AngioDynamics initiation report dated February 8, 2017, p. 12 (A primary
challenge for NanoKnife currently is obtaining reimbursement and ANGO believes more studies and
clinical data could help that. While it has country approvals and a DRG code in Germany, ANGO
continues to seek CMS and NICE (UK) reimbursement for NanoKnife procedures).
10 See e.g. determinations by Aetna, Priority Health, BCBS of Arizona, BCBS of Florida, and BCBS of
Alabama.
11 Cantor Fitzgerald on AngioDynamics, November 3, 2016, p. 1.
12 See AngioDynamics August 5, 2015, presentation, slide 21.
13 Earnings call transcripts obtained via Capital IQ.
14 See AngioDynamics October 15, 2015, presentation, slide 18.
what hope is there for Pulse with an extraordinarily similar product backed up by far less
research and experience to build a real business?
While AngioDynamics continues to hold out hope that NanoKnife will flourish one day, its clear
that the market has more sober expectations. NanoKnife accounts for roughly 5% of
AngioDynamics revenue, and the entire firm has an enterprise value of only $636 million, the
vast majority of which is obviously attributable to other products. Simply applying
AngioDynamics overall EV-to-sales multiple to an estimate of NanoKnifes sales,15 we estimate
that the market is valuing NanoKnife at just $29 million:
Implied Market Valuation of

NanoKnife
($mm )
AngioDynamics, FY 2016:
Total net sales $ 354
NanoKnife net sales 16
AngioDynamics EV 636
EV to net sales 1.8x
Implied NanoKnife value $ 29
Pulse downside (92)%
Source: company filings, Capital IQ,

Kerrisdale analysis
If Pulse somehow merited the same valuation as NanoKnife, its shares would have 92%
downside. Of course, such a valuation is absurdly generous. Pulse has 13 employees and no
commercial products; its years from earning significant revenue. NanoKnife, by contrast, is
actually in use today. There is simply nothing about Pulses prototype technology that deserves
a 1,200% premium to its closest comparable. If a healthcare provider or payor wasnt swayed by
NanoKnifes selling points, then Pulses pitch will also fall on deaf ears.
Though less similar to Pulses NPS, EDAPs HIFU product Ablatherm also furnishes an example
of a novel ablation tool that has fallen short commercially. While Ablatherm does use heat
(generated indirectly by sound waves) to kill cancer cells and thus differs from the purportedly
non-thermal approaches of IRE and NPS, it has its own unique selling point: its completely
noninvasive, deployed either outside the body or from within a cavity. As discussed above,
HIFU has also been found to trigger immune responses. In early 2006, EDAP was a hot stock,
quadrupling from ~$5 to ~$20 per share on the back of the companys initiation of clinical trials
in the US. But investor enthusiasm was short-lived: Ablatherms weak results, described above,
forced EDAP to abandon its plan to seek approval for the devices use in prostate-cancer
treatment and instead pursue a narrower and far less meaningful regulatory clearance to ablate
prostate tissue, with no claim made as to treatment efficacy. As a result, Ablatherm, like
15Cantor Fitzgerald has estimated that current NanoKnife revenues are $16 million. See initiation piece,
November 3, 2016, p. 2.
NanoKnife, still suffers from a lack of insurance coverage. Today EDAPs shares trade at $2.53
off some 90% from their peak and the companys HIFU products generated just $1 million of
operating income in 2016. Much of the EDAPs small market cap stems not from HIFU but from
its kidney-stone-treatment business, which accounted for 61% of its 2016 net sales. Even if we
allocate half of the companys enterprise value to HIFU, the valuation is still just $26 million
very close to our estimate of what NanoKnife is worth and, again, a tiny fraction of Pulses
valuation, even though EDAP, for all its flaws, can at least claim to have a finished product to
sell.
Approached from any angle, Pulse is massively overvalued even if NPS technology is all its
cracked up to be. At best, NPS is a close cousin to NanoKnife, an obscure, poor-selling product
frowned up by insurers and unable to gain a commercial foothold beyond a handful of users.
The features that Pulse claims distinguish NPS from all other cancer treatments and ablation
modalities its ability to foster apoptosis and spark an immune response are in fact
commonplace yet have done little to drum up sales. Beyond the bluster, Pulses technology is
nothing special.
IV. Pulses Technology Is Impotent and Unreliable
Even if Pulses NPS lived up to its billing, it would have little value in a world where NanoKnife
and other novel ablation modalities have faltered. However, a detailed review of the available
published data shows that NPS is disturbingly inconsistent and ineffective. Thus its
overvaluation is even more extreme.
Pulses Basal-Cell Carcinoma Trial Was a Failure
NPS has almost never been used on humans. The first reported case was published in 2007,
when a researcher self-administered 200 20ns-long electrical pulses at a field strength of 6.5
kV/cm to attempt to ablate a small basal-cell carcinoma (BCC). Within six weeks, the BCC was
replaced by a scar, and surgical excision later showed that the cancer was gone (19). But this
informal, un-blinded self-study, described in only a few sentences in an old paper, hardly
constitutes a formal trial. The first and only such trial to date was published in 2014 in a paper
whose lead author is now Pulses chief scientific officer (4).
Taken at face value, the trial was a success. As Pulse later said, We believe the study
demonstrated NPES is safe and can offer a fast and scarless alternative to current standard of
care.16 Pulse has also highlighted two sets of photos of lesions treated in the trial, cherry-
picking the most attractive results and omitting more disturbing images.
16 See Pulse March 28, 2016, presentation, slide 17.
Notwithstanding Pulses selective presentation, its clear that this trial was, in reality, a failure.
Pulse only treated three patients, each of whom had multiple BCC lesions ten in total.
Fourteen to fifteen weeks after NPS treatment, based on histological analysis, three of the
lesions still harbored cancer; the other seven did not. Its important to note the distribution of
these failures: two out of the three patients still had at least one cancerous lesion, indicating
that, even for a single patient, the effects of NPS are unpredictable and inconsistent. The third
patient, though determined by the authors to be cancer-free, continued to have anomalous-
looking lesions in the same locations, the likes of which would send anyone to the
dermatologist:
Before and After Images of

Basal-Cell Carcinomas
Treated by NPS in a
Successful Patient
Source: Nuccitelli et al. 2014 (4)
While the published write-up of this trial claims that NPS was sufficient to cause most of these
lesions to disappear during the ensuing several weeks, disappear hardly seems the right word
for what happened. Every lesion in every patient developed a black, scab-like covering,
described in the paper as a crust. Many weeks after the crust fell off, the results were still
unsettlingly poor:
Two lesions were still visibly malignant (1c and 2c)
One appeared relatively normal but remained cancerous (1d)
Two developed seborrheic keratosis, a skin condition that resembles cancer (2d and 2e)
Two developed what the authors described as hyperpigmentation (2a and 2b, shown
above), as well as dermal scar[s]
Two looked relatively normal but suffered from dermal scar[s] (1a and 1e)
One looked relatively normal (1b)
Relative to Pulses spin about offering a scarless alternative as well as its long-term ambition
to pursue other cosmetically sensitive dermatological indications these outcomes are
abysmal. Only one out of ten lesions treated can honestly be described as fixed.
Nor is curing 70% of the lesions (as measured just ~14 weeks after treatment) an impressive
accomplishment. The gold standard for the treatment of basal-cell carcinoma, a technique
called Mohs surgery, is extremely effective; among patients with primary BCC, i.e. those who
have never had the cancer before, 99% are still cancer-free five years after treatment (20). In
the NPS trial, by contrast, just one out of three patients was cancer-free within a matter of
months; well likely never know the longer-term recurrence rate, but it can only get worse. While
other treatments are less effective than Mohs surgery, none is nearly as bad as Pulses NPS:
Nano-Pulse Stimulation Appears to Be the Worst Known

Treatment for Basal-Cell Carcinoma
Treatment 5-year recurrence

method rate for primary BCC
Mohs surgery 1%
Standard surgical
5-10%
excision
Curettage and 7-13%
electrodessication
Radiation 7-9%
Cryotherapy 8%
Pulses NPS 30%+
Source: Kauvar et al. 2015 (20), Nuccitelli et al. 2014 (4), Kerrisdale
analysis
While Pulse (then BioElectroMed) didnt acknowledge the inferiority of its results The efficacy
of this treatment modality was good, it bizarrely insisted it did make excuses. Some of the
lesions could only be partially ablated, the authors claimed, because they were larger than the
NPS systems electrodes. But these lesions were still quite small; the largest was just 2 cm x 1
cm (0.8 in x 0.4 in). Moreover, the researchers did attempt to cover the entirety of the lesions,
splitting them into multiple regions and applying many pulses to each region; according to them,
they simply failed to do a good enough job. But if implementing NPS is so difficult and
impractical that even small skin lesions can overwhelm it, how can it possibly succeed in the
real world? Furthermore, what happened to the much vaunted immune response that NPS is
supposed to trigger? As Pulse tells the tale, NPS is so powerful and immunogenic that ablating
a tumor in one part of the body will prevent tumor growth in other parts. In the BCC trial,
however, improved lesions and cancerous lesions co-existed; there was no sign that the former
conferred any benefit upon the latter.
In short, in its clinical debut (and only published trial to date), Pulses NPS technology badly
underperformed all standard treatments for basal-cell carcinoma in terms of eradicating cancer,
while also producing multiple unexpected and unexplained skin anomalies and singularly
failing to give any indication of positive immune benefit. Its no wonder that NPS has remained
obscure.
NPS Fails to Kill Many Cancer Cells
In the wake of NPSs abysmal debut trial, researchers directly funded by Pulse17 have very
recently published another disturbing set of results. To gauge the sensitivity of different human
cell types, both cancerous and healthy, to NPS, the researchers applied standardized treatment
regimens in vitro. What they found was that the number of pulses it took to kill half the cells
treated (the LD50) varied massively, and for no discernible reason, across different cell types,
with a factor of 80 separating the relevant dose for the most and least sensitive categories.
Moreover, cancer cells were generally less sensitive to NPS better able to survive it than
healthy cells, an obviously undesirable pattern for a putative cancer treatment.
While the unpredictability and inconsistency of NPS is itself problematic, the most alarming
finding what the authors called yet another unexpected characteristic of the survival curves
was the phenomenon of residual resistivity: even after thousands of pulses, a meaningful
fraction (10-20%) of populations of every type of cell tested continued to survive. While similar
examples of incomplete killing had been reported before, the authors had chalked them up to
methodological flaws. Here, however, they took great pains to remove all sources of doubt yet
upheld their initial conclusion (emphasis added):
We were able to find isolated live cellseven after the most intense
treatments[R]esidual resistivity was not an artifact but reflected an unusual level of
nsPEF tolerance in a limited sub-population of cells. Understanding the mechanism
underlying this tolerance, as well as methods to overcome it, is essential for efficient
tumor ablation by nsPEF and remains an area for future investigation.
[The data] provided evidence for the highly diverse nsPEF sensitivity not only between
cell lines, but also between individual cells within each cell line. The presence of these
resistant cells could have a major impact on the successful ablation of tumors,
17See Gianulis et al. 2017s acknowledgements: This work was supported by a Grant from Pulse
Biosciences Inc.
thus stressing the need to identify the physiological characteristics responsible for
nsPEF tolerance.
Though couched in staid academic language, these words mark a crisis in Pulses research
agenda. When 10-20% of neuroblastoma cells, liver-cancer cells, fibrosarcoma cells, and
pancreatic-cancer cells survive even after the most intense NPS exposure, the notion of NPS
as a universal cancer-treatment platform becomes absurd. Zapping away a fraction of a tumor
wont do much good when the resistant remainder can rapidly grow back. Nor is there good
reason to expect that Pulse researchers can quickly solve this problem; after all, as described in
the paper, they already tested many possible explanations but failed to find one that fit the facts.
Stepping back, it should come as no surprise that a tumor-ablation modality that purportedly
relies on apoptosis would falter. After all, in order to become cancerous in the first place, cells
must be able to overcome natural checks on aberrant growth, including apoptosis; as tumors
grow, pro-apoptotic mechanisms tend to weaken and fail (21). By contrast, its difficult for cells
to resist physical interventions like freezing temperatures or scalpels. There is thus good reason
to believe that the latest finding of Pulses own research that many cells, both healthy and
cancerous, cannot be killed by NPS will stand the test of time and render its technology
worthless.
V. Conclusion
Pulse is a tiny company that has made virtually no progress toward commercializing a
technology that barely seems to work in the first place yet the market is pricing it as if it were
already 13x more valuable than its closest peer. In the years to come, Pulse will need to
repeatedly raise capital to cover its cash outflows as it attempts to inch closer to becoming a
real business. But we believe this money will be wasted: Pulses NPS technology is simply too
similar to NanoKnifes irreversible electroporation to gain much traction, especially when the
best available evidence reveals NPS to be ineffective and unreliable. These nanosecond pulses
deserve a nanocap valuation, at least 90% lower than where Pulse trades today.
References
1. Improved Local and Systemic Anti-Tumor Efficacy for Irreversible Electroporation in
Immunocompetent versus Immunodeficient Mice. Neal, Robert E. II, et al. 5, May 2013, PLoS
ONE, Vol. 8, p. e64559.
2. Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) Fails to Demonstrate Efficacy in a Prospective Multicenter
Phase II Trial on Lung Malignancies: The ALICE Trial. Ricke, Jens, et al. 2, 2015, Cardiovasc
Intervent Radiol, Vol. 38, pp. 401-8.
3. A Randomized Trial Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation and Surgical Resection for HCC
Conforming to the Milan Criteria. Huang, Jiwei, et al. 6, December 2010, Annals of Surgery,
Vol. 252, pp. 903-912.
4. First-in-human trial of nanoelectroablation therapy for basal cell carcinoma: proof of method.
Nuccitelli, Richard, et al. 2014, Experimental Dermatology, Vol. 23, pp. 130-142.
5. Selective susceptibility to nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) across different human
cell types. Gianulis, Elena C., et al. 2017, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, Vol. 74, pp.
1741-1754.
6. Focal irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer: functional outcomes and short-term
oncological control. Ting, F, et al. March 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, Vol.
19, pp. 46-52.
7. High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation: Safety and Efficacy of Next-Generation
Irreversible Electroporation Adjacent to Critical Hepatic Structures. Siddiqui, Imran A., et al.
2017, Surgical Innovation, pp. 1-8.
8. Calcium-Mediated Pore Expansion and Cell Death Following Nanoelectroporation.
Pakhomova, Olga N., et al. 2014, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 1838, pp. 2547-2554.
9. Westhoff, Mike-Andrew, Marschall, Nicolas and Debatin, Klaus-Michael. Novel
Approaches to Apoptosis-Inducing Therapies. [ed.] Christopher D. Gregory. Apoptosis in
Cancer Pathogenesis and Anti-Cancer Therapy. 2016, pp. 173-204.
10. Thermal Albation of Tumours: Biological Mechanisms and Advances in Therapy. Chu,
Katrina F. and Dupuy, Damian E. March 2014, Nature Reviews Cancer, Vol. 14, pp. 199-208.
11. Cryo-Immunology: A Review of the Literature and Proposed Mechanisms for Stimulatory
versus Suppressive Immune Responses. Sabel, Michael S. 2009, Cryobiology, Vol. 58, pp. 1-
11.
12. Harnessing the Immunomodulatory Effect of Thermal and Non-Thermal Ablative Therapies
for Cancer Treatment. Bastianpillai, Christopher, et al. 12, September 2015, Tumor Biology,
Vol. 36, pp. 9137-9146.
13. Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer and Infectious Disease. Galluzzi, Lorenzo, et al. 2017,
Nature Reviews Immunology, Vol. 17, pp. 97-111.
14. Antitumor Effect after Radiofrequency Ablation of Murine Hepatoma Is Augmented by an
Active Variant of CC Chemokine Ligand 3/Macrophage Inflammatory Protein-1. Iida, Noriho,
et al. 2010, Cancer Research, Vol. 70, pp. 6556-6565.
15. Immune Adjuvant Activity of Pre-Resectional Radiofrequency Ablation Protects against
Local and Systemic Recurrence in Aggressive Murine Colorectal Cancer. Ito, Fumito, et al.
November 2015, PLoS One.
16. Effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of experimental neuroblastoma.
Yang, Rong, et al. 2, 1992, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 27, pp. 246-251.
17. Thermal and Mechanical High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound: Perspectives on Tumor
Ablation, Immune Effects and Combination Strategies. van den Bijgaart, Renske J.E., et al. 2,
2017, Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, Vol. 66, pp. 247-258.
18. Irreversible Electroporation versus Radiofrequency Ablation: A Comparison of Local and
Systemic Effects in a Small-Animal Model. Bulvik, Baruch E., et al. 2, August 2016, Radiology,
Vol. 280, pp. 413-424.
19. In vitro and in vivo evaluation and a case report of intense nanosecond pulsed electric field
as a local therapy for human malignancies. Gardon, Edward B., et al. 2007, Int. J. Cancer, Vol.
121, pp. 675-682.
20. Consensus for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Treatment: Basal Cell Carcinoma, Including a
Cost Analysis of Treatment Methods. Kauvar, Arielle N.B., et al. 5, May 2015, Dermatol Surg,
Vol. 41, pp. 550-571.
21. Radiation-Induced Cell Death Mechanisms. Eriksson, David and Stigbrand, Torgny.
2010, Tumor Biol, Vol. 31, pp. 363-372.
22. Study of Apoptosis and Heat Shock Protein (HSP) Expression in Hepatocytes Following
Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA). Rai, R., et al. 1, November 2005, Journal of Surgical Research,
Vol. 129, pp. 147-151.
Full Legal Disclaimer
As of the publication date of this report, Kerrisdale Capital Management LLC and its affiliates
(collectively "Kerrisdale") have short positions in and own options on the stock of Pulse
Biosciences, Inc. (PLSE). In addition, others that contributed research to this report and
others that we have shared our research with (collectively with Kerrisdale, the Authors)
likewise have short positions in the stock of PLSE. The Authors stand to realize gains in the
event that the price of the stock decreases. Following publication of the report, the Authors may
transact in the securities of the company covered herein. All content in this report represent the
opinions of Kerrisdale. The Authors have obtained all information herein from sources they
believe to be accurate and reliable. However, such information is presented as is, without
warranty of any kind whether express or implied. The Authors make no representation,
express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or
with regard to the results obtained from its use. All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice, and the Authors do not undertake to update or supplement this report or any
information contained herein.
This document is for informational purposes only and it is not intended as an official
confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted
as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. The information
included in this document is based upon selected public market data and reflects prevailing
conditions and the Authors views as of this date, all of which are accordingly subject to change.
The Authors opinions and estimates constitute a best efforts judgment and should be regarded
as indicative, preliminary and for illustrative purposes only.
Any investment involves substantial risks, including, but not limited to, pricing volatility,
inadequate liquidity, and the potential complete loss of principal. This reports estimated
fundamental value only represents a best efforts estimate of the potential fundamental valuation
of a specific security, and is not expressed as, or implied as, assessments of the quality of a
security, a summary of past performance, or an actionable investment strategy for an investor.
This document does not in any way constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell
any investment, security, or commodity discussed herein or of any of the affiliates of the
Authors. Also, this document does not in any way constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer to
buy or sell any security in any jurisdiction in which such an offer would be unlawful under the
securities laws of such jurisdiction. To the best of the Authors abilities and beliefs, all
information contained herein is accurate and reliable. The Authors reserve the rights for their
affiliates, officers, and employees to hold cash or derivative positions in any company discussed
in this document at any time. As of the original publication date of this document, investors
should assume that the Authors are short shares of PLSE and stand to potentially realize gains
in the event that the market valuation of the companys common equity is lower than prior to the
original publication date. These affiliates, officers, and individuals shall have no obligation to
inform any investor or viewer of this report about their historical, current, and future trading
activities. In addition, the Authors may benefit from any change in the valuation of any other
companies, securities, or commodities discussed in this document. Analysts who prepared this
report are compensated based upon (among other factors) the overall profitability of the
Authors operations and their affiliates. The compensation structure for the Authors analysts is
generally a derivative of their effectiveness in generating and communicating new investment
ideas and the performance of recommended strategies for the Authors. This could represent a
potential conflict of interest in the statements and opinions in the Authors documents.
The information contained in this document may include, or incorporate by reference, forward-
looking statements, which would include any statements that are not statements of historical
fact. Any or all of the Authors forward-looking assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions
or beliefs about future events may turn out to be wrong. These forward-looking statements can
be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks, uncertainties and other
factors, most of which are beyond the Authors control. Investors should conduct independent
due diligence, with assistance from professional financial, legal and tax experts, on all
securities, companies, and commodities discussed in this document and develop a stand-alone
judgment of the relevant markets prior to making any investment decision.

Pulse Biosciences Inc. PLSE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pulse Biosciences Inc. PLSE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

May 2017

Pulse Biosciences, Inc. (PLSE)

We are short shares of Pulse Biosciences, a ~$400mm medical-device company with 13

Selection from NanoKnife Marketing Presentation, February 2012

Source: AngioDynamics. Red highlights added by Kerrisdale.

1 Pulse 2016 10-K, p. 3.

3 See AngioDynamics FY 2009 10-K, p. 4.

Pulses Results in One Patients Basal-Cell Carcinoma

Does this look like a cure?

Source: Nuccitelli et al. 2014 (4), Kerrisdale analysis

4 See e.g. Pulse 2016 10-K, p. 6.

Pulse Biosciences: Capitalization and Financial Results

III. Pulses Technology Is Nothing Special

The scientific literature, however, paints a different picture: irreversible electroporation is

Unlike other [focal therapy] modalities, [IRE] relies on a non-thermal mechanism to

7 Pulse 2016 prospectus, p. 38.

Direct cold-induced coagulative necrosis occurs at the centre of cryoablative lesions,

Many Other Cancer Treatments Stimulate the Immune System

Necrosis occurs with mechanical tissue damage, such as cryoablation, and is

Select Ablative Therapies Found to Stimulate the Immune System

Source: Bastianpillai et al. 2015 (12), Table 1

Irreversible electroporation also appears to confer a degree of anti-tumor immunity. In 2013,

Observed Immune Effects Have Not Translated to Clinical Benefits

Despite intriguing suggestions of positive immunological side effects, however, nonsurgical

[C]ommon disadvantages include incomplete ablation, disease recurrence and inferior

Technologies Like Pulses Have Been Commercial Flops

12 See AngioDynamics August 5, 2015, presentation, slide 21.

13 Earnings call transcripts obtained via Capital IQ.

14 See AngioDynamics October 15, 2015, presentation, slide 18.

Implied Market Valuation of

Source: company filings, Capital IQ,

IV. Pulses Technology Is Impotent and Unreliable

Pulses Basal-Cell Carcinoma Trial Was a Failure

16 See Pulse March 28, 2016, presentation, slide 17.

Before and After Images of

Source: Nuccitelli et al. 2014 (4)

Two lesions were still visibly malignant (1c and 2c)

Nano-Pulse Stimulation Appears to Be the Worst Known

Treatment 5-year recurrence

NPS Fails to Kill Many Cancer Cells

You might also like